<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Twitter&#8217;s Traffic Up 9%, Thanks To Google</title>
	<atom:link href="http://searchengineland.com/twitters-traffic-up-9-thanks-to-google-36509/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://searchengineland.com/twitters-traffic-up-9-thanks-to-google-36509</link>
	<description>Search Engine Land: News On Search Engines, Search Engine Optimization (SEO) &#38; Search Engine Marketing (SEM)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:39:57 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: benjaminwright</title>
		<link>http://searchengineland.com/twitters-traffic-up-9-thanks-to-google-36509/comment-page-1#comment-8907</link>
		<dc:creator>benjaminwright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:50:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchengineland.com/?p=36509#comment-8907</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve witnessed Google real time search recognize my Google buzzes.  My guess is that Google-Buzz is better at attracting relevant Google-originated traffic than Twitter because Google-Buzz allows you to write with many more than just 140 characters.  If you write an update with more words, the search engine has more material to assess what you are talking about.  I buzzed my observations here: http://www.google.com/buzz/113714308152841400614/iptddz5hUs1/Search-Engine-Optimization-Google-Buzz-Page-Rank  

I am interested to hear the observations of others.  --Ben</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve witnessed Google real time search recognize my Google buzzes.  My guess is that Google-Buzz is better at attracting relevant Google-originated traffic than Twitter because Google-Buzz allows you to write with many more than just 140 characters.  If you write an update with more words, the search engine has more material to assess what you are talking about.  I buzzed my observations here: <a href="http://www.google.com/buzz/113714308152841400614/iptddz5hUs1/Search-Engine-Optimization-Google-Buzz-Page-Rank" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/buzz/113714308152841400614/iptddz5hUs1/Search-Engine-Optimization-Google-Buzz-Page-Rank</a>  </p>
<p>I am interested to hear the observations of others.  &#8211;Ben</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BradleyT</title>
		<link>http://searchengineland.com/twitters-traffic-up-9-thanks-to-google-36509/comment-page-1#comment-8872</link>
		<dc:creator>BradleyT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:44:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchengineland.com/?p=36509#comment-8872</guid>
		<description>And their profits are up how much?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And their profits are up how much?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.243 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-02-10 10:14:44 -->
<!-- Compression = gzip -->
